By Zhang Baosheng, a partner of King & Wood’s Dispute Resolution Group

In 2005, China amended its Company Law(1)and made substantial adjustments to the State’s company law system and strengthened the justiciability of company related disputes. However, some provisions of the amended Company Law are overly general, conceptual and declaratory, and as a result it is not uncommon to find disparate outcomes in similarly situated cases. In order to ensure uniform understanding and application of the Company Law and provide guidance for judicial practice and commercial activities, the Supreme People’s Court (the "Supreme Court") issued two judicial interpretations of the Company Law(2), mainly clarifying certain fundamental principles of applying the Company Law and specific matters like dissolution and liquidation of companies.

Continue Reading The Supreme People’s Court and the Company Law: Presumptions and Gap-filling Round Three

作者：何薇、王亚西 金杜律师事务所争议解决组

域名具有标识功能，当域名与他人在先拥有的商标、企业名称或其他民事权益发生冲突时，这些在先权利的权利人（以下简称“权利人”）的法律救济途径有两条：一是向域名争议解决机构投诉，二是向法院起诉或向仲裁机构提起仲裁（基于双方之间达成的仲裁协议）。通常情况下，出于控制成本和节省时间的考虑，权利人会首先选择域名争议程序，当然前提是被抢注的域名注册时间不超过两年。但在域名争议解决程序进行中，或者专家组作出裁决后，投诉人（即权利人）或者被投诉人（即域名持有人）均可以就同一争议向中国互联网络信息中心所在地的中国法院提起诉讼，或者基于协议提请中国仲裁机构仲裁。对于域名争议解决中心已经作出裁决，被投诉人又向法院起诉的，则面临域名争议裁决与司法裁判的衔接问题。笔者提出下面两个问题，旨在抛砖引玉，希望引发更多的探讨。

Continue Reading 域名争议裁决与司法裁判的衔接

By: Susan Ning, Angie Ng and Shan Lining

Last week (between 26 to 27 May 2011), it was reported in the press that Unilever has raised the prices of specific products (including Lux and Hazeline branded shampoos and shower gels) by 10% in some cities including Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou (Unilever’s price increases).  This was touted as a surprising move given that Unilever was recently fined by the price authority, the National Development Reform Commission (NDRC) in relation to conduct to do with its proposed price increases just earlier in the month (see below for more details to do with this fine) (Unilever’s price signaling conduct).

This article outlines details to do with Unilever’s price signaling conduct and subsequent price increases and examines whether or to what extent such conduct would be considered in breach of the Price Law and the Anti-Monopoly Law in China.

Continue Reading Price signaling and price hikes – a breach of the Price Law or Anti-Monopoly Law?

By: Susan Ning, Shan Lining and Angie Ng

On 6 May 2011, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) announced that a manufacturer of household and personal care products (the Manufacturer) has been fined a total of RMB2 million for breaching the Price Law.  The NDRC also appeared to have made some Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) references in relation to this case.

Continue Reading Price hikes and price signaling

By He Wei and Wang Yaxi of King & Wood Dispute Resolution Group

When a domain name is in conflict with the prior rights of others (e.g. the trademark rights, the rights of the company name, etc.), there are two approaches of settling the disputes: 1) the prior right holder may file a complaint to one of two domain name dispute resolution centers, or 2) the prior right holder may bring an action to the court or refer the dispute to arbitration. For the sake of efficiency and cost control, the prior right holder will typically seek a resolution from a domain name dispute resolution center(1)("DNDRC"), on the condition that the disputed domain name has been registered for less than two years.

 

Continue Reading Bridging DNDRC Decision and Judicial Judgment on Domain Name Dispute

By Susan Ning, Liu Jia and Angie Ng

On 25 April 2011, the Supreme People’s Court (the Court) published draft rules which govern Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) private actions (Draft Rules)1.   These Draft Rules are entitled "Provisions on Issues Concerning the Application of Law in relation to Trials of Monopoly Civil Dispute Cases".  The Court will consult on these Draft Rules till 1 June 2011.

We note that these Draft Rules provide for applicants to file "joint" applications with others against respondents.  This article outlines what the Draft Rules say about joint applications and outlines how this interacts with the joint application regime pursuant to China’s Civil Procedure Law.

 

Continue Reading AML Class Actions and The Draft Litigation Rules

By Denning Jin, Helen Chen of King & Wood’ s Dispute Resolution Group and Shanghai Office

Background

A number of automobile design patent infringement cases have been brought to Chinese courts in recent years, such as Honda v. Hebei Shuanghuan, FIAT PANDA v. Great Wall PERI, Neoplan v. Beijing Zhongtong Xinghua Automobile Selling Co., Ltd., et al. The hallmarks of these cases are not only the high value of the damages claimed and the importance of the outcomes which are dispositive to the market structure, but also the malleability of rule of law in the field of design patent infringement determination.

Continue Reading PRC Supreme People’s Court: Clarified Design Patent Infringement Determination

By Susan Ning, Shan Lining, Ji Kailun and Liu Jia

 

On 25 April 2011, the Supreme People’s Court (the Court) published draft rules which govern Anti-Monopoly Law private actions (Draft Rules).  These draft rules are entitled "Provisions on Issues Concerning the Application of Law in relation to Trials of Monopoly Civil Dispute Cases".

 

This article outlines the salent provisions of, and points to some interesting features of, these Draft Rules.

Continue Reading A Further Look At The Draft Rules Governing AML Private Actions

By Susan Ning, Yin Ranran

On 25 April 2011, the Supreme People’s Court issued for public comments draft rules which govern civil action in relation to Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) disputes.  These rules are entitled "Provisions on Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Monopoly Civil Dispute Cases"("Draft Rules").  Prior to the release of these Draft Rules, there haven’t been any detailed rules in relation to AML civil action.  The court will consult on this Draft Rules till 1 June 2011.

The Draft Rules contain 20 articles covering jurisdiction, standing of plaintiffs, burden of proof, evidentiary rules, relationship of antitrust administrative investigations and the judicial process, form of civil liabilities and the statute of limitations.  The objective of these Draft Rules is to ensure proper adjudication of civil monopoly disputes cases, prevent monopolistic conduct, protect fair competition in the market and safeguard the interests of consumers and public interest.

Continue Reading Supreme People’s Court Issues Draft Rules Governing Private Actions under the Anti-Monopoly Law

By Richard W. Wigley of King & Wood’s Intellectual Property Group

Today in China, in conjunction with World IP Day 2011, numerous governmental agencies will actively begin a week-long promotion of the role of intellectual property in the nation’s economy, according to Han Xiucheng of the State Intellectual Property Office (“SIPO”)1. Such efforts are to be lauded, but it is well known that copyright piracy rates in China are still significantly higher (80-90+%, depending on the type of work) than those seen in developed countries, such as the United States. Copyright piracy results from a combination of factors, including not only the effectiveness of the enforcement regime, but also from consumers’ attitudes toward pirated works. There has been a shift in recent years in China away from pirated works and toward legitimate works, but this shift has been slow due to a variety of reasons. Into this dynamic, it is valuable to look at some of the most recent efforts of the P.R.C. government to reduce copyright piracy across China.

Continue Reading World IP Day 2011 in China Shows Progress in Copyright Protection, though Challenges Remain